In article , jacobnavia
writes:

Those papers do not show any physical evidence.

Right. If they did, they would be reporting a dark-matter detection,
not discussing a candidate. So, to first order, this is another
candidate like many others: WIMPs, MACHOs, PBHs, fuzzy dark matter,
self-interacting dark matter, superfluid dark matter, etc.

The common author in all
papers is Jarah Evslin,

Right.

working in Peking.

Not any more, though still in China. While there might be some examples
of people from the West working in China because they couldn't get any
academic job elsewhere (I have met some), Evslin is definitely not one
of those. He is extremely knowledgeable about both astronomy and
particle physics. This is also a rare combination (not counting people
who work on BBN, inflation, etc, which is mainly particle physics
applied to an astrophysical problem).

quote
Dark matter halos grow by merging. This merging requires them to be
attractive, but the simplest manifestation of monopole dark matter is
repulsive.
end quote

!!!

Don't let this throw you off.

Unfortunately these monopoles repel and so the charge Q 1 halos are
unstable. This may rule out our model. Then again, protons repel but
visible matter is mostly made of protons, as the repulsion at small
distances is canceled by neutrons and at large distances is screened by
electrons. The monopoles only repel at long distances. So what are the
analogs of the electrons? Electrons carry the opposite charge from
protons but cannot annihilate with protons as they carry a flavor
quantum number and the lightest state for a decay product, the neutron,
is too massive for the decay to be kinematically allowed. Similarly such=

a flavor quantum number for the monopoles is an automatic consequence of=

our fermionic couplings. The masses of the various flavors of monopoles
can be adjusted by choosing the Yukawa couplings. We propose to include
light antimonopoles of a different flavor which screen the long distance=

repulsion of our monopoles. If such a screening cannot be made to work,
our proposal will be excluded.
end quote

Let's see then...

They have to first find out the "electrons" that would screen out the
repulsion between those galaxy sized monopoles.

All this is interesting, yes, but it is very difficult to gauge if there=

is any connection with reality at this stage. Mathematics is an infinite=

forest, and it is very easy to lose your way in the equation undergrowth.=
...

Obviously too, I am in NO WAY able to follow precisely those papers, and=

can only look at the conclusions.

The thing which makes this idea interesting is that it explains, at one
fell swoop, many of the most pressing problems at the border between
cosmology and astrophysics, in particular the observed properties of
low-mass galaxies, satellite galaxies, the matter distribution within
galaxies, and so on. Yes, the theory itself is one of many, but this it
has in common with other candidates. What makes it interesting is that
it explains much more and makes robust testable predictions.